Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
lawyers either. We thought that the Supervisors should get a second, outside opinion on whether the consent order was the very best the county could hope for with the ski area suit.
Instead, the Supervisors decided not to authorize money to the BZA for another legal ruling. As a result, they have hung the BZA out on a line to dry.
Rather than embarassing the BZA members by reversing the ski area application denial, the Supervisors should have scheduled a joint public hearing to inform the BZA of their reservations. They should also have solicited a second legal opinion. If another opinion supported Davis contention that the BZA’s action was indefen sable, then it was time to arrange a consent order.
That’s not even close to the chain of events that actually occured. Since Davis had the consent order on his desk before the Supervisor’s executive session, it appears that he acted unilaterally to negotiate with the ski area before getting approval from the entire Board of Supervisors.
On Wednesday, several concerned citizens were at the courthouse after learning of the planned meeting between the Supervisors and the Commonwealth’s Attorney. They were told by the Supervisor Chairman that they couldn't attend the executive session.
If the meeting was closed from the outset, what happend to Virginia Freedom of Information Act requirements that call for a vote in open session before a governing body retires to private deliberations? If there was a vote taken in open session, why wasn’t the public allowed in for that portion of the meeting?
83.5%